t_for_talli
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,243
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
NEW DELHI: With India having got the US's coveted backing for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, two major aspirants to the high table are fuming. Both Germany and Japan went public with their annoyance at their claims being overlooked and made their displeasure known to the US.
In an interview to a TV channel, US ambassador to India Tim Roemer admitted as much. He said the two nations had asked why India had been accorded special treatment and the reasons US saw it as a valued partner. The ambassador indicated that the resistance pointed to the distance that needed to be travelled for UN reform to become a reality.
He also suggested that US backing for India's case showed Washington's determination to pursue its ties with India that president Barack Obama outlined during his visit.
While India has managed to wrest an important pledge from president Obama that may take some time to be realized, it is still crucial. So far, Washington had only supported Japan for a permanent seat at the UNSC even though it opposed the G4 (a group that included Japan, Germany, Brazil and India).
With Obamas announcement on Monday, the US has shifted its own stance to accommodate India. But that doesn't mean the G4 to which India has tacked its own aspirations is in the clear yet.
Security Council reform is not only about putting India into the body. The issues at stake are what should be the ideal size of a new UNSC; whether the new members would have veto rights, the number of permanent and non-permanent members, its relations with the UN General Assembly, whether there should be regional representation.
Officials said the UN's body debating the inter-governmental negotiations will restart their deliberations soon. The US show of support will make a difference to India and Japan. Not to Germany, which is opposed by Italy and by many other countries who say giving a permanent seat to Germany would put a third seat in Europe (fourth, if you count Russia as a European power), at a time when European power is in decline. Besides, EU was asking for a separate status for itself in the UNGA, they argue.
Africa is a problem too. There is general consensus that Africa should have two seats in the UNSC, but which two countries? Even the African Union is divided on that. There can't be UNSC reform without the Africans because then the world runs the risk of all 53 African countries boycotting.
Then there is China. The Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson on Tuesday, when questioned, said, China values India's status in international affairs and understands India's aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations and is ready to keep contact and consultations with India and other member states on the issues of Security Council reform.
But even if China can be made to digest an Indian membership, as at the NSG, its not going to be so easy for Japan, which even has South Korea opposing it. Brazil is opposed by Mexico and Argentina (since its the only Portuguese-speaking country in a Spanish-speaking continent), and of course, Pakistan opposes India. These countries had formed the Coffee Club, later renamed United for Consensus, and will most likely be resurrected again, perhaps with tacit Chinese support.
How many permanent members should the new UNSC have? The US wants around 19 members (in both categories). The G4 position is more sensible that's India, Brazil, Japan and Germany, two African countries and three added to the non-permanent list. There are other ideas floating around UK, France and Liechtenstein proposed an interim arrangement for 10 years and a review thereafter. The Chinese are more non-specific and have just said they want more seats for developing countries.
Veto? India will fight to the end for the veto. But many countries say they can live without it, because the veto is not used anymore and lobbying for support is the way to go in the Council. But veto, like nuclear weapons, is a currency of power. That battle, therefore, will continue.
With all these roadblocks, why is India optimistic? Its eminently doable, said sources on background. India's recent bid for the non-permanent seat fetched it 187 votes. That was huge. It signalled, if nothing else, that the world is ready for UNSC reform and that India has a better chance than most. Last week, India won what is believed to be the most difficult vote in the UNGA Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) with a whopping 164 votes, leaving Japan trailing at 146, China at 130 and Pakistan at 114. These, say officials, are all signals of support.
The trick is now to convert all this into a usable text in the UNGA and lay on the diplomatic charm. Indian officials, chuffed at their recent successes, now exhibit a rare can-do spirit. India sees change happening by 2012.
Germany, Japan fume at Obama's UN nod - The Times of India
In an interview to a TV channel, US ambassador to India Tim Roemer admitted as much. He said the two nations had asked why India had been accorded special treatment and the reasons US saw it as a valued partner. The ambassador indicated that the resistance pointed to the distance that needed to be travelled for UN reform to become a reality.
He also suggested that US backing for India's case showed Washington's determination to pursue its ties with India that president Barack Obama outlined during his visit.
While India has managed to wrest an important pledge from president Obama that may take some time to be realized, it is still crucial. So far, Washington had only supported Japan for a permanent seat at the UNSC even though it opposed the G4 (a group that included Japan, Germany, Brazil and India).
With Obamas announcement on Monday, the US has shifted its own stance to accommodate India. But that doesn't mean the G4 to which India has tacked its own aspirations is in the clear yet.
Security Council reform is not only about putting India into the body. The issues at stake are what should be the ideal size of a new UNSC; whether the new members would have veto rights, the number of permanent and non-permanent members, its relations with the UN General Assembly, whether there should be regional representation.
Officials said the UN's body debating the inter-governmental negotiations will restart their deliberations soon. The US show of support will make a difference to India and Japan. Not to Germany, which is opposed by Italy and by many other countries who say giving a permanent seat to Germany would put a third seat in Europe (fourth, if you count Russia as a European power), at a time when European power is in decline. Besides, EU was asking for a separate status for itself in the UNGA, they argue.
Africa is a problem too. There is general consensus that Africa should have two seats in the UNSC, but which two countries? Even the African Union is divided on that. There can't be UNSC reform without the Africans because then the world runs the risk of all 53 African countries boycotting.
Then there is China. The Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson on Tuesday, when questioned, said, China values India's status in international affairs and understands India's aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations and is ready to keep contact and consultations with India and other member states on the issues of Security Council reform.
But even if China can be made to digest an Indian membership, as at the NSG, its not going to be so easy for Japan, which even has South Korea opposing it. Brazil is opposed by Mexico and Argentina (since its the only Portuguese-speaking country in a Spanish-speaking continent), and of course, Pakistan opposes India. These countries had formed the Coffee Club, later renamed United for Consensus, and will most likely be resurrected again, perhaps with tacit Chinese support.
How many permanent members should the new UNSC have? The US wants around 19 members (in both categories). The G4 position is more sensible that's India, Brazil, Japan and Germany, two African countries and three added to the non-permanent list. There are other ideas floating around UK, France and Liechtenstein proposed an interim arrangement for 10 years and a review thereafter. The Chinese are more non-specific and have just said they want more seats for developing countries.
Veto? India will fight to the end for the veto. But many countries say they can live without it, because the veto is not used anymore and lobbying for support is the way to go in the Council. But veto, like nuclear weapons, is a currency of power. That battle, therefore, will continue.
With all these roadblocks, why is India optimistic? Its eminently doable, said sources on background. India's recent bid for the non-permanent seat fetched it 187 votes. That was huge. It signalled, if nothing else, that the world is ready for UNSC reform and that India has a better chance than most. Last week, India won what is believed to be the most difficult vote in the UNGA Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) with a whopping 164 votes, leaving Japan trailing at 146, China at 130 and Pakistan at 114. These, say officials, are all signals of support.
The trick is now to convert all this into a usable text in the UNGA and lay on the diplomatic charm. Indian officials, chuffed at their recent successes, now exhibit a rare can-do spirit. India sees change happening by 2012.
Germany, Japan fume at Obama's UN nod - The Times of India
Neither it has support from other permanent members.
